Benghazi whistleblower: U.S. special forces were told to stand down during attack

posted at 1:21 pm on May 6, 2013 by Allahpundit

The alleged source: Greg Hicks, the same State Department deputy whose jaw dropped when he heard Susan Rice equivocating about whether the consulate attack was pre-planned or not.

Who told SOCAFRICA they couldn’t go to Benghazi?

The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday.

According to excerpts released Monday, Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound “when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, ‘you can’t go now, you don’t have the authority to go now.’ And so they missed the flight … They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it.”…

“I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them,” Hicks testified. Two Americans died in the morning mortar attack.

“They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it,” Hicks added. “So, anyway, and yeah. I still remember Colonel Gibson, he said, ‘I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military.’ A nice compliment.”

He added that “at that time, the third attack, the mortar attack at 5:15, had not yet occurred, if I remember correctly.”…

Hicks is certain that the special forces team was needed. “We fully intended for those guys to go, because we had already essentially stripped ourselves of our security presence, or our security capability to the bare minimum,” he said in the interview.

No way to know if Gibson’s team would have made it to the scene in time to save Doherty and Woods from the attack on the annex if they had received the order to leave promptly, but that’s beside the point. The point, as Stephen Hayes notes, is that it was unclear at the time if the fighting was over, in which case there’s no obvious reason to have them stand down. On the contrary, if Hicks is right about a threadbare security presence at the consulate — and we know from many, many revelations last fall that he is — then the White House had every reason to err on the side of sending extra military assets. When asked why that didn’t happen, Hicks replied, “I guess they just didn’t have the right authority from the right level.” Any theories as to why that might be? Remember, when Martin Dempsey testified three months ago as to why U.S. troops weren’t sent to the scene, he said, “we never received a request for support from the State Department.” Hicks, who was Stevens’s deputy at State, obviously thought support was needed. Who intervened above him to make sure the request wasn’t sent?

Question: Are we to understand that it’s official Obama administration policy not to intervene in attacks on U.S. diplomats unless intelligence on the ground is perfect, or near perfect? I ask because last year Panetta attempted to wave away all these concerns about troops not being sent to the consulate during the fighting on grounds that “you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.” That logic, as applied to the “bare minimum” security presence at Benghazi, suggests that the White House decided to leave whoever was left on the ground at the consulate to fend for themselves while waiting for “help” from Libyan security so that it didn’t have to take the political risk of another Mogadishu by sending American troops on a chaotic rescue mission. Is that what happened here? And is it uniform policy for diplomats in peril, or just ones who happen to come under attack two months before a presidential election?

Update: Any guesses as to whose fault it is that Benghazi hasn’t gotten better coverage until now? Hint: It’s not the media’s, and it’s certainly not the left’s. C’mon, you know who.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

CBS’s Sheryl Atkinson is the only national news reporter on this story with any alacrity or interest, all the rest want desperately for it to go away so as not to harm The Precious or Madame What Difference Does it Make.

Over/under on number of days before CBS/Les Moonves gets back-to-back phone calls from Huma Abedin and Valerie Jarrett “suggesting” that Atkinson be fired?

“Nice network you have here Les, be a shame if something happened to it.”

*Oh, that video bomb thingy in that Sandy place? Oh, yeah whatever happened with that? Hillary did such a great job. I know I watched CBS one night and that Ambassador gal said it was a video and Hillary did a great job. She’ll make a great President. Will Bill be able to be Vice President? Yeah, he had a scandal come up about something with a blue dress but what difference did that make? Lots of politicians are kind of sleazy. Besides I read that young girl was a naughty girl.

If not an impeachable offense, it’s for sure, not a morale booster! In any case, we are witnessing the cluless, low testosterone results of the past 40+-years of the feminization of our military! Not to mention society, in general!

If a C130 Spectre gunship had been put in the air as soon as the attack was reported, not only would lives have been saved, but the attackers could have been wiped out. Those things have infrared and night vision, and precision-targeting weapons, cannon and 50-cal guns. The laser would not have been needed.

Anybody know the time of the hearing on Wednesday, and if it will be on C-Span? I may be (cough-cough) “sick” that day, and have to stay home and watch it.

Hussein gets a mulligan even when Americans are killed on his watch. I’m beginning to believe the media will look the other way even if the Norks nuke us. They’ll probably run a new expose on Cheney or Haliburton or revisit Nixon’s failings.

This was basically corroborated months ago by Panetta when he said that you do not send in forces without knowing whats going on. Still can’t believe he said that, as if any military man or women would ever come up with a policy like that when your fellow countryman are screaming out for help and under attack.

Question: Are we to understand that it’s official Obama administration policy not to intervene in attacks on U.S. diplomats unless intelligence on the ground is perfect, or near perfect? I ask because last year Panetta attempted to wave away all these concerns about troops not being sent to the consulate during the fighting on grounds that “you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.” That logic, as applied to the “bare minimum” security presence at Benghazi, suggests that the White House decided to leave whoever was left on the ground at the consulate to fend for themselves while waiting for “help” from Libyan security so that it didn’t have to take the political risk of another Mogadishu by sending American troops on a chaotic rescue mission. Is that what happened here? And is it uniform policy for diplomats in peril, or just ones who happen to come under attack two months before a presidential election?

That was my initial impression last fall. That this wasn’t so much about maintaining the narrative that al-Queda was on the run(although the coverup is in part about that). But rather that Obama simply didn’t wanna risk another Black Hawk Down situation 2 months before the election, so he figured just leave the handful of personnel in Benghazi to fend for themselves. It’s a lot easier to stonewall when you’re dealing with a handful of dead bodies than when you’ve potentially got dozens of dead Americans in what at that point would obviously have been a terrorist attack.

Do they no longer teach the concept of Immediate Action, even if the action can later be found to be detrimental, there is supposed to be an immediate action, in this case No action at all was the response and as usual it is the worst decision the chain of command could possibly make.

Won’t matter. President Obama announced an immigration “prosecutorial discretion” amnesty of laws on the books on the eve of a national election, and nobody did anything. He invented a claim of “executive privilege” overnight after years of stonewalling regarding Fast and Furious, and nobody did anything. He is utterly lawless, and his cult will defend him over anything. He could kick a puppy in the face while smoking a joint made out of the original copy of the Constitution and they would line up to protect him. Benghazi will amount to nothing, and in practical terms it already has.

I can see this going the way of the Calley trial and the cover-up of My Lai: The ‘investigation’ stopped at a lowly field lieutenant who claimed to have received radio orders that the village was hostile and needed to be removed as a base of Viet Cong operations. I believe Calley’s captain got in trouble, too, but no one wanted to go higher up the chain of command.

Unless two or three witnesses can drop the same name(s), I fear this mess might stall again.

I suggest that the phrase ‘turn-about is fair play’ should be considered when sentencing Hillary AFTER SHE IS FOUND GUILTY OF PERJURY. By that I mean Hillary should be reinstated as a member of the State Department – NOT as Secretary of State but as Ambassador to Libya, specifically in Benghazi, relocated to the newly renovated & re-opened Benghazi Compound. She should be stationed there immediately with the same security detail Stevens had on 9/11/12….which as we know now was ‘ZERO’ – no U.S. protection. She should be assigned there for 3 months during which time all requests for additional security will be denied…and THIS TIME any attempts to come to her rescue (which after being betrayed on 9/11/12 I am sure there will be none) will be told to ‘Stand Down’.

If Obama is so sure that Al Qaeda is on the decline & the War on Terror is over, let him prove it by going with Hillary to Benghazi under the same conditions for his next vacation with Tiger Woods…

Rush is saying that Obama and the gang refused to believe that an attack was happening, because that would make them wrong.I don’t believe that he has seen this report, yet.

kingsjester on May 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM

I still wonder if one of the reasons the Obama/Hillary administration were afraid/unwilling to respond and try to help the trapped Americans was because they were afraid that the AQ terrorists were using U.S. weapons they’d obtained as a result of Barry’s unilateral decision to intervene in Libya’s civil war.

It would not have helped Barry’s re-election if the U.S. public learned that American diplomatic personnel had been killed with U.S. weapons supplied to AQ terrorists in Libya by Barry. That fear would also explain why it took three weeks before the F.B.I. showed up to investigate the “crime scene” in Benghazi. That delay helped insure that all the most important evidence of what had happened was long gone from the scene.

The security detail from Tripoli, which was much closer, had only just arrived in time for the second firefight, at 1:45. Bear in mind, though, that the Tripoli detachment came on their own rather than waiting for orders from State, which were not forthcoming anyway

Coming back from a work trip from Cairo, I bumped into someone who works for the US government in North Africa. We got to talking about Benghazi, and he told me that there was a small SF unit in Tripoli, but was told to STAND DOWN by the acting general in charge of them. They requested to go on that flight with the State personnel, but were DENIED. That bird stood on the tarmac in Tripoli for some time before taking off. The reasoning; they didn’t know what was happening on the ground. Everything was not done to assist the Annex in Benghazi.

Patriot Vet on April 30, 2013 at 1:54 PM

I still have the guys card that I met. As far as not knowing what was going on, a guy I went throught BUD/S with runs the UAV program out of North Africa. Here he is talking with another buddy I served with at ST-3, Brandon Webb. He says that the administration is lying about the clarity of the imaging.

Wasn’t General Ham in charge of SOCAFRICA at the time?

a capella on May 6, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Yes, but he was in washington at the time, meeting with the president. So, his second was in charge.

Yep. Within the next month or so we should get to see just how spineless the Republicans are.

Obama lied, our diplomat died.

Seriously, I can’t think of a more significant case of gross negligence in the history of the American presidency.

Obama knew running guns to the Islamists was dangerous, and yet he pulled out most of our security to more easily keep it quiet. Then, when one Islamist faction attack us he forced the military to stand down to try and cover up his gun running. Finally, desperate to find anything to distract from what was happening he called in a favor and got a random film director arrested.

Obama: You can’t handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has a 24/7 news cycle. And those news cycles have to be guarded by women with pre-arranged talking points. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Ed Henry? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Ambassador Stevens and you curse Hillary. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Steven’s death, while tragic, probably saved my campaign. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, provides billions to my campaign donors and political cronies…You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places they don’t talk about at parties, they want me in the oval office. They need me in that oval office. You use words like honor, code, loyalty…I use ‘em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a public who rises and sleeps knowing every detail of keeping up with the Kardashians, then questions why I fly off to a fundraiser with Beyonce! I’d rather you just keep watching Dancing with the Stars and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up your checkbook and write a check. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to!

‘And hell is what is coming, one way or the other, because this time — unlike the Clinton impeachment — the big dogs are in play, in the form of a hordes of very pissed-off special ops agents, patriotic spooks, forcibly retired generals and clandestine operatives who know where the bodies are buried. If the Obama administration turned its back on Chris Stevens and the three other brave Americans who died that day for crass political purposes — and, worse, if it let them die as collateral damage in its own gunrunning operation to Syria — the men and women who stand watch for this country all through the night are going to come out of the shadows, quickly.’

Damn right. One should know better than to f*ck with the spooks, who were originally the ones thrown under the bus.

It’s a lot easier to stonewall when you’re dealing with a handful of dead bodies than when you’ve potentially got dozens of dead Americans in what at that point would obviously have been a terrorist attack.

Doughboy on May 6, 2013 at 1:37 PM

The death toll of Americans could have been a lot higher than a handful. There were dozens of people trapped in the consulate. Most were able to get out because of the extraordinary bravery of ex-SEALs Woods and Doherty, who defied orders to make a rescue attempt.

That was what Joe Biden was referring to when he made the remark to one of the SEALs father’s about his son having had enormous b*lls. I don’t remember the exact quote, just remember thinking it was grossly inappropriate and offensive to say something like that to a grieving father over the dead son’s coffin.

What president, in their right mind, sends an openly Gay US Ambassador to a radically Islamist country with an unstable potlical situation, to begin with? They behead gay folks in Muslim countries, simply because they are gay.

you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on

As to this, several people have mentioned Blackhawk Down scenarios. This is very likely a result of Hillary and Panetta being the most experienced folks engaged in this. Blackhawk Down happened on Bill Clinton’s watch as president. The primary problems there were a mentality of being convoy guards and a seriously underwhelming force (due to underestimating the enemy). (Yes, there was also the aspect of the battle taking place in a nominally civilian-inundated area.) Ironically, this wouldn’t have been a problem last September, as most of our military commanders (and troops) have the experience of a decade in Iraq and Aghanistan to draw from, where they re-learned that overwhelming force is the way to go. It *couldn’t* have turned into another Battle of Mogadishu… unless, of course, the civilian powers-that-be had hung them out to dry. Which they actually did – just without the military deaths that would have brought back old memories.

They actually *DID* produce another Blackhawk Down scenario, just this time there was no Blackhawk, just some poor State Department and CIA schmucks who were expendable.

The President of the United States & Hillary Clinton knowngly aided & abetted the terrorists who killed Ambassador Stevens by refusing to provide security to Stevens after 2 previous terrorist attacks & after the rebel group that was hired to protect him announced 2 months prior to his death that they would no longer provide him security. Obama and Clinton KNOWINGLY abandoned & betrayed Americans under fire, Americans who fought for 12 hours while waiting for help to arrive – help Obama & Clinton ensured would never arrive!

It was done to continue to perpetrate their flimsy lie that Al Qaeda was on the decline, that they were no longer a threat, & that there was no more on terror. In order to have any chance to pull off the lie and cover up that Benghazi was just a demonstration over a YouTube Video they could not allow anyone into Benghazi to witness for themselves the on-going terrorist attack by approximately 100 AK-47, Mortar, & rocket lanuncher-carrying terrorists. They counted on most, if not all, witnesses being killed – the others could be silenced by threats from the administration.

Unfortunaetly for them their flimsy lie began to unravel almost immediately. Still, with the help of the media Obama was able to hold it off – almost getting away with it totally – until after the election. Hillary bailed almsot immediately to get away from it, to preserve any chance at having a Presidential run in 2016. With help from the media & the same Justice Dept that would not press charges against it’s boss Holder for perjury regarding fast & Furious, Obama & Hillary will probably still get away Scott Free.

Nixon got booted for helping hide several minutes of audio tape…& Obama will have lied, covered up, his part in aiding terrorists assassinate the 1st Ambassador to be killed in over 30 years & the abandonment/betrayal/treason of Americans under fire on 9/11/12.

you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on

We DID know what was going on in Benghazi. Former Charlene Lamb, who was the Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for embassy security, said that she watched it in ‘real time’ in Washington. There was a drone overhead sending images back to the White House’s Situation Room, the State Department, and elsewhere.

Napoleon had standing orders to his generals: when in doubt, march to the sound of the guns and attack. Somebody should inform our Dear-Leader-From-Behind of such principles. Also that “leading from behind” has historically been considered synonymous with cowardice.

‘And hell is what is coming, one way or the other, because this time — unlike the Clinton impeachment — the big dogs are in play, in the form of a hordes of very pissed-off special ops agents, patriotic spooks, forcibly retired generals and clandestine operatives who know where the bodies are buried. If the Obama administration turned its back on Chris Stevens and the three other brave Americans who died that day for crass political purposes — and, worse, if it let them die as collateral damage in its own gunrunning operation to Syria — the men and women who stand watch for this country all through the night are going to come out of the shadows, quickly.’

Damn right. One should know better than to f*ck with the spooks, who were originally the ones thrown under the bus.

Resist We Much on May 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Oh. Now doncha know this is all just…

…based on the unsupported assertion of one, right-wing partisan who has a vested interest in muddying the waters on behalf of her client.

I would agree the entire Administration didn’t and still doesn’t have the collective intelligence to act on anything anywhere. And I don’t mean the kind that comes from CIA in daily briefings (which Obama refuses to attend, anyway).

Evacuating these types of installations is common. The armed forces TRAIN specifically for it! I have trained to do NEO operations when in the military. It is ABSURD to think, or say, that you need 100% knowledge of what is going on on the ground. If that is how our SecDef viewed it, he should have stepped down.

c. Uncertain Environment. An operational environment in which host government forces, whether opposed or receptive to the NEO, do not have total effective control of the HN territory and population. Because of the uncertainty, the JFC may elect to reinforce the evacuation force with additional security units or a reaction force. Approved ROE are disseminated early to ensure that the joint force has knowledge of and is sufficiently trained and proficient in application of the ROE. Planning for NEOs conducted in an uncertain environment must always include the possibility for escalation to a hostile environment.

a. Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 3025.14, Protection and Evacuation of US Citizens and Designated Aliens in Danger Areas Abroad, assigns the responsibility to plan and conduct NEOs in support of DOS to the GCCs.

Here is the key bit:

b. Military Response. Normally, the JFC receives authorization from the supported CCDR before using any forces and facilities in a foreign country for protection and evacuation. However, if a JFC receives a request from the ambassador or responsible US diplomatic representative to provide assistance and the delay in obtaining authorization would jeopardize the safety of US citizens, the JFC should respond to the extent deemed necessary and militarily feasible.

The acting commander in North Africa, should have sent troops when the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) requested them to be sent to Benghazi. That was the acting senior dilomatic person in charge since the Ambassador was missing. Why no one is bringing up the normal way in which evacuations used to take place is beyond me.

There is only one person that can order US forces across a national boundary (also known as an invasion).
Just one.
So while we have all the ability in the world to have stopped this,
While we had the troops ready to go
What we didn’t have was permission.
And that is why Stevens and the others died, the cavalry was told to stay home.

Well, we know that obama wanted Stevens (specifically) eliminated – but, we don’t know exactly why. What did Stevens know / what was he involved in, that made him a problem for obama?

Obama was lying to the American people, lulling them into a false sense of security about how Al Qaeda was on the decline, how Al Qaeda was no longer a threat, & how there was no ‘war on terror’…

In the meantime, Stevens was generating reports about how Al Qaeda was increasing it’s presence in Benghazi – their flags had begun to be seen flying over Libyan Govt Buildings, & how Al Qaeda had started up 10 new terrorist training camps – camps we used to target & dstroy whenever they started popping up.

We know by released documents that the rebel militia that the State Department hired to protect Stevens (rather than have our own troops/personnel protect him) informed the State Department 2 months before Stevens’ death that they would no longer protect him…because they were associated with Al Qaeda & Al Qaeda’s increased presence in Benghazi was a ‘deal breaker’.

Hillary was the 1st to openly mention Obama’s policy in Libya was a ‘Low Profile’ strategy, & not having a U.S. military or otherwise contingency on Benghazi to protect Stevens was critical to that ‘Low Profile’ strategy.

Obama’s whole ‘Al Qaeda is no threat … no war against terror’ lie was unraveling with Major Hassan’s Fort Hood terrorist attack as he had been in contact with Al Qaeda Leaders. If everything Stevens was reporting got out – especially that over 100 Al Qaeda terrorist stormed the compound & killed Stevens in Benghazi on 9/11/12 the lie would be shattered…and his record for not allowing any terrorist attacks after 9/11 (a record Bush could brag about) ws also threatened.

The truth is, there have been 5 terrorists ‘successfully’ carried out attacks on US soil since 9/11 – all of them on Obama’s watch: Underwear bomber (he got to his destination and detinated his bomb, which thankfully was a dud), a Marine recruiter was killed by an Extremist, Major Hassan at Ft Hood, & now the 2 Boston terrorists.

Are we to understand that it’s official Obama administration policy not to intervene in attacks on U.S. diplomats unless intelligence on the ground is perfect, or near perfect? I ask because last year Panetta attempted to wave away all these concerns about troops not being sent to the consulate during the fighting on grounds that “you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”

we knew what was going on well enough, Mr. P. US personnel were in harms way and were asking for help. You send in the roughnecks who can figure out the rest on the fly while helping our peeps out. That’s what we train for–-contingencies. by the time you have access to all the information, the smoke is cleared and you’re just left with dead bodies.

Panetta’s remark that “you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place” is plain idiotic and wrong. It would be the reverse of reality for the military to send personnel into harm’s way only when there’s a good level of intelligence as to the situation on the ground. Most of the time you have some bits and pieces of information, e.g., “consulate under attack by X number of people with ABC types of weapons,” and you do the best you can. In this case, the military likely had a satellite view of the area surrounding the consulate and sketches of the consulate itself. That is more than enough information for a company of Marines to land and secure the facility.

bengazi is a political witchhunt by a congressman trying to make a name for himself

nonpartisan on May 1, 2013 at 5:42 PM

People need to grow up and stop assuming that there’s always a cover up or government incompetence involved.

bayam on May 1, 2013 at 5:16 PM

yeah, they were wrong about it being a youtube video that sparked it. ok, thats not a crime. we have more pressing issues to deal with.

nonpartisan on May 1, 2013 at 6:08 PM

No one cares about Benghazi in the context of American ventures in that part of the world over the past decade.

Why doesn’t anyone on the right demand investigations that explore the failed war strategy in Iraq that’s ultimately descending into another era of chaos where terrorists thrive? Thousands of lives and trillions of dollars lost is suddenly less important than the death of a few Americans in Libya?